ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
The Impact of Housing and Basic Service Delivery on Low-Income Communities in
South Africa: The Case of the northern Free State Region
Dr Daniel Francois Meyer
Faculty of Economic Sciences and Information Technology School of Economics
North-West University (Vaal Triangle Campus) South Africa
Email: daniel.meyer@nwu.ac.za
Doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n13p11
Abstract
This article investigates the impact of the provision of housing and basic services on poor communities in the northern Free
State (NFS) region of South Africa. Service delivery and housing backlogs in poor communities have led to an increase in
violent protest marches throughout the country. Poor communities seem frustrated with the rate of service delivery since the
election of the first democratic government in 1994. A community household survey, which included 2 900 households, was
conducted in 2013 in the NFS region and included twelve poor communities. The regional result was compared with four
selected poor communities in the region, namely Moakeng (Moqhaka Local Municipality), Qalabotjha (Mafube Local
Municipality), Tumahole (Ngwathe Local Municipality) and Zamdela (Metsimaholo Local Municipality). The impact of delivery of
basic services and housing were analysed regarding poverty levels, as well as the relationship between the concepts of poverty
and service delivery. Results of the survey indicate that 75.9 percent of the households reside in formal subsidised houses with
high levels of ownership but a relatively low average monthly household income of only R1 458 ($140/month) relating to high
levels of poverty. Only 35.6 percent of all households surveyed are of the subjective opinion that local government delivers
quality services. More detailed results per specific area are analysed and discussed in the article. The results could play an
important role in development policy formulation and policy adjustment. The results should also be taken into account in the
formulation of local economic development (LED) plans for the areas under investigation with a focus on the benefits of
housing delivery and associated basic services. Improved service delivery must be promoted by means of improved
coordination between all spheres of government.
Keywords: service delivery, housing provision, local government, poverty, northern Free State region
1. Introduction
After twenty years of democratic government, South Africa still faces endemic levels of unemployment, poverty and
inequality as identified in the National Development Plan (NDP) (Republic of South Africa, 2011). “Endemic and wide
spread poverty continue to disfigure the face of our country. It will always be impossible for us to say that we have fully
restored the dignity of all our people as long as this situation persists” (Mbeki, 2006). More than 50 percent of South
African households live in poverty, and in most cases, these households lack the basic services required to live a quality
life. According to Statistics South Africa (2014), the poverty level in 2009 was 56.8 percent, which has decreased from
57.2 percent in 2006. Housing and basic services play a vital role in meeting the basic needs of poor communities.
Housing provides the security required for a household to function and is a requirement for alleviation of poverty (Mamba,
2006).
In 2005, Clark and Qizilbash did a study in poor areas of South Africa and respondents were asked what basic
needs are most required to survive by poor households. As a result of the survey, basic needs were ranked.
Subsequently, housing ranked the highest priority, followed by food, water, jobs, income, clothes, education, health care,
electricity, safety, transport, family, sanitation, and infrastructure. As could be expected, luxury activities such as sports,
recreation and leisure activities were not ranked as high-level priorities for the poor (Clark & Qizilbash, 2005).
Huge backlogs related to housing and basic services still exist in South Africa due to mainly the apartheid history.
In 1994, with the establishment of democracy in South Africa, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP)
was released as a guiding policy document. Already then, the provision of basic infrastructure was identified as a key
priority for the reconstruction of the county and improvement of quality of life (ANC, 1994). Post-apartheid development
policy in South Africa has focused on the effective and efficient delivery of basic services, especially to those that
historically have been deprived of services such as water, sanitation, housing, electricity and health services (CSIR,
2012). Housing is seen as one of the main basic needs for survival of the poor. Service delivery since 1994 has been
impressive, taking into account the massive backlogs, with the implemention of a number of pro-poor policies such as
̱ͳͳ̱
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
housing subsidies, and free basic water and electricity.
However, urbanisation has left large urban communities without basic services (Alexander, 2010). President
Zuma’s government is fully aware of the importance of providing and resolving these backlogs. In his State of the Nation
Address (SONA) in 2011, he stated that although many poor people have received services, many are still waiting for
housing and basic services (Zuma, 2011). Government has to create an enabling environment for all, including for the
poor, to allow access to opportunities through the provision of housing and basic services. Access to such services is still
lacking, especially in rural areas. The South African housing policy states that all citizens should have access to basic
services, irrespective of their locality (Mamba, 2006).
Due to the unresolved service delivery backlogs, the number of protest actions has increased drastically over the
last few years in South Africa. From mid 2013 up to end of April 2014, the country had an average of approximately four
anti-government protests a day, and most protests are violent in nature. The country seems to be witnessing the
development of a protest movement of poor communities showing their anger and frustration at the service delivery
performance of government. Since 1994, living standards of all communities have improved through massive service
delivery projects, but according to the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), this has led to a theory of rising
expectations. The service delivery improvements have led to increased living standards but unemployment has
increased. The poor communities are still poor and caught up in a vicious cycle of poverty. A mindshift with applicable
policy amendments is needed. The unemployed are now looking at government to provide jobs, which is not a pure
government function (SAIRR, 2014). The eradication of poverty is also one of the key priorities of the South African
government. Various government policies have been introduced to improve the welfare of poor households, including
access to housing and basic services (SALGA, 2010).
This article aims to investigate the impact of the provision of housing and basic services on poverty in a typical,
poor South African township. The geographical focus of the article is on the poor communities in the northern Free State
(NFS) region of South Africa. Approximately 2 900 poor households were interviewed as part of the quantitative section of
the research.
2. Conceptual Background
The provision of housing for low-income communities has a vital role to play in allowing households to function, and is
essential for human development. Housing provides both environmental services such as clean water and energy, and
locational services with access to opportunities and social facilities (Marais, 1998; Stewart, 1997). Housing with basic
services improve the physical welfare of the poor, assist with entrepreneurial activities, builds an asset base, allows
privacy, strengthens social relations, status improvement, and control over the local environment (Pynoos, 1973).
Housing with basic services also has an impact on the quality of parenting and social factors. Homelessness can lead to
problems such as illness, neglect, injuries, family separation, and impaired academic functioning (Crowley, 2003).
According to Harber (2009), service delivery as a concept is not neutral. Service delivery includes a host of
assumptions, policies and promises. Governments make election promises on service delivery, which in most cases, they
cannot achieve. Government needs to deliver, and communities need to receive, services. The World Bank (2003)
recognises there is no template for successful service delivery, but places the overall responsibility of making services
work on the state, especially for poor communities.
“Poverty reduction is not only about meeting our basic needs, it’s about participation, influence and power”
(Sundqvist, 2009). Poverty is defined as a failure to achieve certain minimum basic needs or capacities (Sen, 1999).
Shaffer (2008) defines poverty as the deprivation of material requirements for the minimum acceptable fulfilment of basic
needs. The existence of poverty is a multi-dimensional problem, which includes the meeting of basic needs (SPII, 2007).
Poverty entails more than a lack of income, as it exists when an individual or household has inadequate access to
income, jobs, infrastructure and basic services. Poverty is caused by a combination of variables including social,
economic, spatial, environmental and political factors (Muller, 2003). Recent poverty alleviation strategies have focused
on the provision of basic needs rather than merely attempting to raise incomes (Tomlinson, 2007). Poverty could be
measured in many ways, and individuals may base their self-perceived subjective poverty on a number of factors, which
may include lack of access to basic services, lack of access to land and housing, poor health facilities, lack of income and
employment (Statistics South Africa, 2012a).
Housing delivery and transfer of ownership to the poor is seen by De Soto (2000) as a strategy to lift people out of
poverty and giving them access to assets. Allocation of assets leads to the opportunity of entrepreneurship and the
creation of wealth. Table 1 is a summary of important developmental and service delivery data for South Africa, the Free
State province and the NFS region, which forms part of the Free State. Low levels of human development (HDI) and
̱ͳʹ̱
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
literacy still exist, although these have improved slightly over the last 20 years of democracy. The levels of inequality are
still relatively high if compared to most African and developing countries. The level of service delivery is relatively high
and in general, the levels of service delivery are better in the NFS region than in the rest of the province and South Africa.
Table 1: Key developmental and service delivery data
Indicator
HDI
Gini-coefficient
Literacy levels
Percentage of households connected to sewer systems
Percentage of households receiving weekly refuse
removal services
Percentage of households connected to piped water
Percentage of households connected electricity
South Africa Free State Province
0.59
0.55
0.63
0.64
73.5
72.2
57.0
64.9
Northern Free State (NFS)
0.58
0.63
74.4
78.2
Na
71.0
81.7
73.4
84.7
44.8
89.9
56.7
89.8
Source: Global Insight (2012) and StatsSA (2012b)
In South Africa, a total housing backlog of 2.1 million units exists, affecting approximately 12.5 million people. The
Department of Human Settlements is responsible for housing provision for the poor. People with an income of less than
R3 500 ($333.00) per month can qualify for housing assistance by means of a housing subsidy. The NFS regional
housing backlog was 40 000 units in 2000 and reduced to 34 000 in 2010. A total of 83.1 percent of all housing units in
the study region consist of formal housing (Republic of South Africa, 2014; Housing Development Agency, 2012).
3. Research Methodology
3.1
Research approach
The approach followed was first, a literature review, which served as the theoretical basis of the research and secondly, a
quantitative household survey in poor communities, as part of the empirical component of the research. Findings and
recommendations were deducted from the literature review and the empirical phases of the research.
3.2
Sample
A quantitative research approach was used to collect data by means of a community household survey in the NFS region
during January 2013. The region is located in the Free State province and directly south of the Gauteng province. The
Vaal river forms the northern boundary of the region. The region is also known as the Fezile Dabi District Municipal region
and includes the local municipalities of Mafube, Metsimaholo, Moqhaka and Ngwathe, as well as the regional authority
known as the Fezile Dabi District Municipality. The region could be described as a rural region with major rural towns
such as Sasolburg/Zamdela, Parys/Thumahole, Kroonstad/Moakeng and Frankfort/Namahadi. The household survey
focused on twelve poor communities in the NFS region and approximately 2 900 households were included.
For the purposes of this study, four of the twelve poor communities were compared in terms of housing delivery
and basic services. The four communities Moakeng (located adjacent to Kroonstad), Qalabotjha (located next to Villiers),
Tumahole (located near Parys) and Zamdela (located next to Sasolburg). As a rule, a 10 percent sample was selected
per poor community. Households in the study area were selected randomly from the various areas. In the analysis of the
survey, households were compared in terms of level of poverty, income, housing delivery and subjective perceptions
regarding basic service delivery. The results for the total region, as well as for the households in the four selected
communities are presented.
3.3
Instrument and procedures
Primary data were collected by means of a questionnaire, which was developed based on a comprehensive literature
review. The questionnaire comprised various sections, which include demographics, income and expenditure,
perceptions of government service delivery, life satisfaction, skills levels and employment aspects of poor people.
̱ͳ͵̱
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
Specific questions regarding this article include the type of housing, housing ownership, housing subsidy received and
subjective perceptions regarding basic services as provided by the specific municipality.
3.4
Ethical considerations
Prior to the administration of the questionnaire, the specific ward councillors and local community leaders were
approached with a request to conduct the study in the area. After permission was granted, potential participants were
approached. In addition to a verbal explanation of the purpose of the study, they were also provided with a cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study. Once informed consent was obtained from the participants, the procedure to
complete the questionnaire was outlined. Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. They were also
informed that participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any stage from the study without any repercussions.
3.5
Data analysis
The survey data were captured and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22
software package. Descriptive statistics were used to report on the data. Pearson’s chi-square test was applied in order
to determine the existence of significant differences between the two groups in the study area (households below the
poverty line and households above the poverty line).
4. Results
4.1
Poverty status
The poverty status of households was calculated using the international US$2 per day, per person, poverty line. To
establish a poverty line for individuals in the household, the $2 was multiplied by 30 (average number of days in a month)
and then by the exchange rate of R11.00 to $1. The monthly poverty line for an individual was calculated and set at R660
($62.90) per month. Of all the households in the NFS region, 74.2 percent are classified as below the poverty line, while
25.8 percent of households are classified as above the poverty line. The average income per household was established
at R1 458 ($140) per month, which confirms the relative low-income levels in the study area. It should be mentioned that
even the households above the poverty line are just marginally above the poverty line and are mostly poor. Therefore, the
total study area is regarded as a poor area. Table 2 provides a summary of the poverty lines in the study area. Poverty
levels are high in the study area within the communities as surveyed. The Qalabothla community had the highest poverty
levels with 81.3 percent of households below the poverty line, while Zamdela had the lowest poverty level of 65 percent of
all households below the poverty line.
Table 2: Poverty lines in the study area
Areas
All poor communities in study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
Percentage of households below
poverty line
74.2
81.3
79.3
65.0
79.1
Percentage of households above poverty
line
25.8
18.7
20.7
35.0
20.9
Table 3 indicates household size and income levels per household in the study area. The average household size in the
study area is 3.8 people per household. Household size and poverty levels are related, and this relationship is evident
from tables 2 and 3. Larger households relates to higher levels of poverty. For example, the Qalabothla community had
the largest household sizes on average of 4.1, and also the highest levels of poverty in the study area. Qalabothla had
the lowest average income per person at R316 ($30.10) per month while Zamdela had the highest income levels at R484
($46.10) per person per month.
̱ͳͶ̱
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Table 3: Household size and income per household
Areas
Number of households
included in survey (n)
Household
size
2921
3.8
R 1 458.00 ($140.20)
R 383.68 ($34.90)
166
363
980
393
4.1
3.6
3.5
3.9
R 1 297.00 ($124.70)
R 1 170.00 ($112.50)
R 1 696.00 ($163.10)
R 1 496.00 ($143.85)
R 316.34 ($30.38)
R 325.00 ($31.25)
R 484.57 ($46.54)
R 383.59 ($36.83)
All poor communities in
study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
4.2
Average household income ($ Average income per person ($
value in brackets)
value in brackets)
Housing provision
According to StatsSA (2012b), urban formal housing comprised of 28.2 percent for the total NFS region, compared to
68.3 percent for urban informal housing. The study area, comprising of only poor communities, had higher levels of formal
housing due to the housing subsidy scheme for the poor. Table 4 indicates housing types and ownership per area.
Overall 75.9 percent of households reside in formal dwellings and only 19.0 percent in informal dwellings (shacks) in the
study area. Qalabothla had the highest percentage of people living in formal housing units, mostly due to the housing
subsidy system for poor households, as it is the poorest community in the area.
Table 4: Housing type and ownership in the study area
Areas
All poor communities in study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
Housing type
Formal house
Shack
75.9
19.0
87.3
10.9
75.5
16.2
76.4
20.6
76.9
15.4
Other
5.1
1.8
8.4
2.2
4.4
Housing ownership
Ownership
Rental Other
76.0
17.2
6.8
88.0
5.3
6.7
61.0
16.8
22.2
77.0
18.8
4.2
78.0
17.6
4.4
Table 5 indicates the relationship between housing type and poverty lines. A total of 73.1 percent of households below
the poverty line reside in formal housing, while 83.9 percent of households above the poverty line live in formal housing.
A total of 20.9 percent of households living below the poverty line reside in informal structures, while only 13.6 percent of
households above the poverty line live in shacks. A significant statistical difference exists between the households living
below and above the poverty line with regards to the type of housing with a chi-square of 37.72 and a p value of 0.000.
The Qalabothla area is the only area that did not show evidence of the difference between the two groups.
Table 5: Housing type and poverty lines
Areas
All poor communities in
study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
Households below poverty line with
formal housing (%)
Households above poverty line with
formal housing (%)
chisquare
pvalue
73.1
83.9
37.72
0.000
86.6
72.5
73.8
73.7
90.3
86.7
81.3
88.9
0.788
7.178
7.868
9.710
0.674
0.028
0.097
0.084
Table 6 indicates the relationship between property ownership and poverty lines. A total of 83.3 percent of households
below the poverty line have ownership, while 89.7 percent of households above the poverty line have property ownership.
A total of 16.6 percent of households living below the poverty line have no property ownership, while only 10.1 percent of
households above the poverty line have no property ownership. A significant statistical difference exists between the
households living below and above the poverty line with regards to property ownership with a chi-square of 59.58 and a p
value of 0.000. The Tumahole area is the only area where no significant difference was recorded between the two
groups.
̱ͳͷ̱
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Table 6: Property ownership and poverty lines
Areas
All poor communities in
study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
Households below the poverty line with
property ownership (%)
Households above the poverty line with
property ownership (%)
chisquare
pvalue
83.3
89.7
59.58
0.000
90.2
52.8
54.3
34.4
93.5
83.9
72.7
38.8
7.29
24.51
33.139
1.666
0.063
0.000
0.000
0.948
Table 7 indicates the relationship between housing subsidy received and poverty lines. A total of 38.7 percent of
households below the poverty line received housing subsidies, while 46.5 percent of households above the poverty line
received housing subsidies. A total of 61.3 percent of households living below the poverty line did not receive housing
subsidies, while only 53.5 percent of households above the poverty line did not receive housing subsidies. A significant
statistical difference exists between the households living below and above the poverty line with regards to housing
subsidy received with a chi-square of 29.08 and a p value of 0.000. For the study area, significant differences exist
between the two groups, but for individual areas the relationship between housing subsidy and the impact on poverty
levels are not clear.
Table 7: Housing subsidy received and poverty lines
Areas
All poor communities in
study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
4.3
Households below the poverty line with
housing subsidy (%)
Households above poverty line with
housing subsidy (%)
chisquare
pvalue
38.7
46.5
29.08
0.000
35.2
9.9
34.7
46.2
29.0
13.9
53.0
29.2
1.58
1.779
40.302
18.196
0.664
0.619
0.000
0.003
Service delivery
This section of the research analyses the subjective perceptions of the poor communities in the study area, with regard to
service delivery by the various municipalities in the region. Table 8 provides information on the subjective perceptions of
poor households in the study area on service delivery. Generally, households are of the opinion that poor service delivery
exists in the study area. A total of 51.0 percent of households are of the opinion that poor services are provided while only
35.6 percent feel that service delivery is good. The communities of Zamdela and Tumahole are most dissatisfied with
service delivery in the area. These two communities are characterised by ongoing violent protest action focused on poor
service delivery in the area by the municipality.
Table 8: Subjective perceptions of service delivery
Areas
All poor communities in
study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
Subjective perception of households:
Local government is providing good
services delivery (%)
Subjective perception of households: Local
government is providing poor services delivery
(%)
Uncertain
(%)
35.6
51.0
11.8
36.9
48.4
22.5
40.3
38.3
38.9
69.4
50.5
24.0
12.7
7.0
8.0
Table 9 provides an indication of which basic services are most lacking in the study area. The overall perception of poor
households is that housing is most lacking, followed by water, electricity and medical services. The individual
communities have similar perception of which services are most lacking in their areas. Housing has been prioritised as
̱ͳ͸̱
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
the highest rated basic need in the study area.
Table 9: Basic services most lacking in the study area
Areas
Basic service lacking most
(subjective household
perception) (%)
Basic service lacking
Basic service lacking third
Basic service lacking
second most (subjective most (subjective household fourth most (subjective
household perception) (%)
perception) (%)
household perception) (%)
All poor
communities in
study region
Housing (27.7%)
Water (20.1%)
Electricity (18.3%)
Qalabothla
Water (37.7%)
Medical access (17.4%)
Housing (14.5%)
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
Housing (62.0%)
Electricity (33.2%)
Water (45.2%)
Water (11.0%)
Medical access (14.7%)
Housing (20.1%)
Electricity (9.3%)
Sewer (13.9%)
Electricity (14.1%)
Medical access (10.0%)
Parks and recreation
facilities (12.4%)
Education (8.35)
Housing (11.8%)
Medical access (8.5%)
Table 10 indicates the relationship between perceptions on service delivery and poverty lines. A total of 35.3 percent of
households below the poverty line are satisfied with service delivery, while 37.1 percent of households above the poverty
line are satisfied with service delivery. From the above it is clear that no significant statistical difference exists between
the households living below and above the poverty line with regards to perceptions on service delivery, with a chi-square
of 5.938 and a p value of 0.430.
Table 10: Perceptions of poor and non-poor households in relation to service delivery
Service delivery perceptions of households
Service delivery perceptions of households
chipbelow the poverty line indicating good service above the poverty line indicating good service
square value
delivery (%)
delivery (%)
Areas
All poor communities
in study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
35.3
37.1
5.938
0.430
34.6
46.6
24.2
39.9
50.0
55.2
21.6
43.6
9.580
1.938
4.071
1.866
0.048
0.585
0.667
0.760
Table 11 gives an indication of the perceptions of households in relation to which component of service delivery the study
are lacks the most. Significant differences exist between the perceptions of households below and above the poverty line,
with a chi-square of 51.530 and p-value of 0.000. For households below the poverty line, housing is the service most
lacking, followed by water, electricity and sewerage. For households above the poverty line, electricity is most lacking
followed by housing, water and medical access.
Table 11: Perceptions of service delivery components most lacking in relation to poverty
Areas
All poor
communities in
study region
Qalabothla
Moakeng
Zamdela
Tumahole
Service delivery component most lacking for
households below the poverty line (listed in
order of priority, top four services only)
Housing, water, electricity, sewer.
Service delivery component most lacking
chipfor households above the poverty line (list in
square value
order of priority, top four services only)
Electricity, housing, water and medical
access.
Water, medical access, housing and parks.
Housing, education, electricity and water.
Water, housing, medical access and parks.
Housing, water, electricity and sewer.
Electricity, sewer, medical access and
Electricity, medical access, housing and sewer.
parks.
Water, housing, electricity and medical
Water, housing, electricity and sewer.
access
̱ͳ͹̱
51.530 0.000
14.470 0.025
21.35 0.002
29.84
0.000
13.092 0.042
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
5. Discussion
In theory, the provisions of housing and basic services for the poor assist with poverty alleviation and wealth creation. In
South Africa, a massive service delivery programme has been implemented. Although significant backlogs still exist, the
programme, in coordination with a social-welfare programme, has resulted in improved quality of life for the poor. These
safety net programmes were necessary due to the legacy of apartheid, but government has not placed enough focus on
job creation and has left poor communities in a vicious cycle of poverty. Housing and basic services are key basic needs
components, but does the provision thereof impact positively on poverty reduction?
In the study area, the more rural communities are poorer than the more urban communities, which are located
closer to the economic hinterland of the Gauteng province. For example, the Qalabothla community is the poorest of the
four communities included in this article. This community is located more than two hour’s driving time from the centre of
Gauteng province. In comparison, the Zamdela community has the highest average income per household and is located
less than one hour’s drive from central Gauteng.
Results of the survey indicate that the majority of households have received housing and basic services in the
study area. More households living above the poverty line than households living below the poverty line in the study area
reside in formal subsidised housing. This indicates that housing delivery can assist in poverty alleviation and be part of a
local economic development strategy. Housing allows for household security and ownership of physical assets. For poor
households, the allocation of assets leads to the creation of wealth and security. The results show that provision of
housing for the poor, through subsidies, is necessary and has an impact on poverty reduction.
Although the study area has been part of a large scale basic services roll-out programme, the majority of the
households are of the opinion that service delivery is of poor quality. Only 35 percent of all households interviewed are of
the opinion that good quality basic services are provided. Consistent with the results of the study by Clark and Qizilbash
(2005), which indicated that housing is the main basic need for the poor, housing is the basic need and service provided
by government that is most lacking in the study area. Other essential basic services that are also lacking are water,
electricity and medical services.
No significant differences were found in the survey between households living below the poverty line and
households living above the poverty line regarding receptions of service delivery by local municipalities in the area. The
two groups of households have however, different perceptions regarding which basic services lack most in their specific
communities. Households living below the poverty line focus more on basic essential services, while households living
above the poverty line focus more on higher level services such as electricity and medical services.
6. Recommendations and Conclusions
This study has found that housing provision and service delivery can have a positive impact on poverty levels and should
be used as a strategy as part of a local economic development (LED) plan as was also confirmed by De Soto (2000).
Benefits of housing delivery to the poor are multi-dimensional. It allows beneficiaries access to assets and wealth
creation, can create jobs through construction and maintenance, allows for skills development, provides decent shelter as
part of a basic needs approach, it is usually accompanied by infrastructure, facilities and basic services, and allows poor
people dignity. The provision of housing can serve as a safety net and the improvement of the quality of life for poor
communities. Good service delivery, including housing and basic services, remains central to the actualisation of a
meaningful life and a quality of life for residents of poor communities. Improved services are linked to an increase in the
dignity of the poor (Nleya, 2011).
Policy reforms are required with a paradigm shift from the delivery of large scale free basic services to job creation
and deregulation of the local economy (SAIRR, 2014). The pace of basic service delivery and momentum must be
maintained, but needs to be accompanied with rapid economic growth at no less than 5 percent per annum (compared to
the current growth rate of 2.0%). Government’s economic development policies contradict the overall goal of increased
economic growth and stand in the way of higher growth rates. Some policies are hostile to investment and
entrepreneurship such as the Employment Equity Act, the Labour Relations Act and the Black Economic Empowerment
(BEE) regulations. Reforms are needed to focus on deregulating the economy to remove the constraints on development
and investment (SAIRR, 2014).
According to Fjeldstad et al. (2005), government, and especially local government, has specific problems regarding
service delivery. Improvements are required concerning the following aspects at the local government/municipal sphere.
Capacity needs to be increased regarding strategic planning focused on LED, housing and service delivery. The different
powers and functions allocated to the different spheres of government need to be re-evaluated. Local government has
̱ͳͺ̱
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
been struggling to deliver basic services over the last decade. For example, LED is a local function, but are regarded as a
luxury by most municipalities and are therefore not sufficiently budgeted and planned for. Housing delivery is on the other
hand a provincial function, but most people blames municipalities for lack of housing provision. Improved public
participation will assist in improved communication and will allow the public to understand better the process and
functions. Closer cooperation is required between municipalities and provincial authorities. Municipalities should use
service delivery and infrastructure development as a poverty reduction strategy and use service delivery as a safety net
for the very poor. Local government, as the sphere of government closest to the people, has to play a significant role in
the needs assessment of local communities, and the planning, provision and maintenance of basic services. It is also
local government’s duty to identify basic need gaps in poor areas, and to provide for such needs.
According to Gumbo (2014), the housing delivery process for low-income communities needs re-evaluation due to
the slow and complicated process. It should be changed from the traditional process of from planning, to service
provision, to construction, to occupation, to the proposed process of starting with planning, then allowing occupation on
an informal basis, then construction of formal housing and lastly, the provision of basic services.
Municipalities should improve on the process of integrated planning by ensuring that the poor section of the
community has access to services and economic opportunities by means of effective spatial planning actions.
In conclusion, the aim of the article was to investigate the impact of housing provision and service delivery on
poverty. It is interesting to note that both housing and basic service delivery improves the level of poverty, but it also
improves the quality of life of poor communities. However, housing and basic service delivery without job creation will not
lead to a substantial reduction of poverty.
References
African National Congress (ANC). (1994). The reconstruction and development programme. Johannesburg. Umnyanyano Publishers.
Alexander, P. (2010). Rebellion of the poor: South Africa’s service delivery protests. Review of African Political Economy. 37(123), 2540.
ANC see African National Congress.
Clark, D., & Qizilbash, M. (2005). Core poverty, basic capabilities and vagueness: an application to the South African context. Working
paper no 26, Global Poverty Research Group.
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). (2012). Poverty and development. Pretoria.
CSIR see Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Crowley, S. (2003). The affordable housing crises: residential mobility of poor families and school mobility of poor children. The Journal
of Negro Education. 72(1), 22-38.
De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital. London: Black Swan.
Fjeldstad, O., Geisler, G., Nangulah, S., Nygaard, K., Pomuti, A., Shifotoka, A., & Van Rooy, G. (2005). Local governance, urban poverty
and service dekivery in Namibia. Norway: CMI Reports.
Global Insight. (2012). Global insight regional explorer data base. Johannesburg.
Gumbo, T. (2014). Housing the urban poor in Africa. Pretoria: HSRC.
Harber, A. (2009). The meaning of service delivery. [Online] Available: http://www.theharberbinger.co.za/wordpress (May 15, 2014).
Housing Development Agency. (2012). Free State: Informal settlements status research report. Houghton, Johannesburg.
Mamba, B. (2006). An appraisal of basic infrastructural service delivery and community participation at the local level: a case study of
three municipalities in the Eastern Cape. Department of Economics, Rhodes University, Grahamstown. Masters Degree thesis.
Marais, H. (1998). South Africa: Limit to change. Zed Books: London.
Mbeki, T. (2006). State of the nation address 2006 of the president of South Africa, 3 February 2006, Cape Town.
Muller, (2003). Indigent policy: including the poor in the city of Cape Town’s income strategy. [Online]. Available:
http//www.capetown.gov.za/policies (March 2, 2014).
Nleya, N. (2011). Linking service delivery and protest in South Africa: an exploration of evidence from Khayelitsha. Africanus, 50(1), 313.
Pynoos, J. (1973). Housing urban America. Chicago: Aldine.
Republic of South Africa. 2011. National Development Plan, 2030. The National Planning Commission. Department of the Presidency.
Pretoria: Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa. 2014. Housing information. [Online]. Available: http//www.gov.za/aboutsa/housing.htm (May 26, 2014).
SAIRR see South African Institute of Race Relations.
SALGA see South African Local Government Association.
SPII see Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute.
Sen, A.K. 1999. Development as freedom. New York. University Press.
Shaffer, P. 2008. New thinking on poverty: Implications of globalization poverty reduction strategies. DESA working paper no 65. United
Nations. New York.
Statistics South Africa. (2012a). Subjective poverty in South Africa. Pretoria: Government printer.
̱ͳͻ̱
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 13
June 2014
Statistics South Africa. (2012b). Census 2011 municipal fact sheet. Pretoria: Government printer.
Statistic South Africa. (2014). Poverty. [Online]. Available: http://beta2.statssa.gov.za (May 26, 2014).
StatsSA see Statistics South Africa.
Stewart, P. (1997). The reconstruction and development programme 1994-1996. Cape Town: Juta and Co.
Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute (SPII). 2007. The measurement of poverty in South Africa project: Key issues. Working Paper
no 1.Johannesburg.
South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR). (2014). Protest action in South Africa: threat, or opportunity for reform. Johannesburg.
South African Local Government Association (SALGA). 2010. Estimating a poverty line: An application to free basic municipal services in
South Africa. Johannesburg.
Sundqvist, J. 2009. The role of young people in poverty reduction. The National Council of Swedish Youth Organizations. Stockholm.
Survey data. (2013). Results of a community survey conducted amongst households in the northern Free State region, January 2013
coordinated by D.F. Meyer.
Tomlinson, R. (2007). The development of a low-income housing finance sector in South Africa. Habitat International. 31(1), 77-86.
World Bank. (2003). World development report 2004: making services work for poor people. Washington: World Bank.
Zuma, J. G. (2011). State of the Nation Adress, 2011. [Online]. Available: http//www.info.gov.za/speech (April 12, 2013).
̱ʹͲ̱